It's better than Crysis 2 in pretty much every respect (which makes me wonder why it's getting worse review scores but IMO these reviews are fair and Crysis 2's were stupidly inflated). Don't know if I'd say it's as good as Crysis 1's single player but there have been some really fun parts so far.

Let's be honest here, though - if graphics don't interest you, these games aren't going to impress you.

I'm also enjoying multiplayer so far too, though it's nothing special and I'm also horrible at it.

I'm afraid you're right. Graphics are great, game is too short, vehicle handling is horrible and AI is really bad. But hey it looks great and it's very demanding, that's what most people want. No wonder they're giving it away with AMD cards, it's like a benchmark but one where you can actually play :shadedshu

I didn't mind the AI - it's basically the same type of AI in the first two Crysis games. It's competent, just not super smart about you cloaking.

What did people expect from this game? I'm confused that people seem disappointed that it's just sort of a fine but awesome looking shooter. Why anyone would expect more than that from this series confuses me.

What did people expect from this game? I'm confused that people seem disappointed that it's just sort of a fine but awesome looking shooter. Why anyone would expect more than that from this series confuses me.

Click to expand...

If I want to look at something pretty, the internet has plenty of amazing things. No matter how nice the jungle, I've seen landscapes that it just cannot touch.

When Crysis came out it was wholly new. You could dick around, and do whatever you wanted. Did you want to stealth in, have a silent genocide, then disappear into the night? Did you want to level the entire area, leaving only a smoking crater in its place? We got the chance to do either option, and everything in between. No two instances were completely the same.

It was pretty, but it was also a decent game. Story was...somewhat lacking would be a charitable way to put it. At the same time, the Ceph were a decently mysterious and fun enemy.

That's why people want something more from Crysis. People were pissed with Crysis 2, but it seems like Crytek only listened to their words, rather than the sentiment. People immediately railed against the visuals. Crytek answered by saying it was PC first. People complained about the multiplayer. Crytek attempts to make that more compelling. What people didn't articulate well is that a tacked on single player game was unacceptable. We expect Crytek to know that, but rarely articulate the sentiment to them.

Is it unreasonable to ask that Crytek have the same vision that created Crysis, but put more polish into it (ala Crysis 2)? I think it's reasonable. Crysis, with more polish, better design, and some streamlining is what people want. If Crytek could deliver that then people might be satisfied. As it stands, it seems like Crysis 3 is more appropriately 2.5. It continues an unfulfilling story, that might be passable if it were taped to the end of 2. That kind of disappointment is what people want to avoid.

If I want to look at something pretty, the internet has plenty of amazing things. No matter how nice the jungle, I've seen landscapes that it just cannot touch.

When Crysis came out it was wholly new. You could dick around, and do whatever you wanted. Did you want to stealth in, have a silent genocide, then disappear into the night? Did you want to level the entire area, leaving only a smoking crater in its place? We got the chance to do either option, and everything in between. No two instances were completely the same.

It was pretty, but it was also a decent game. Story was...somewhat lacking would be a charitable way to put it. At the same time, the Ceph were a decently mysterious and fun enemy.

That's why people want something more from Crysis. People were pissed with Crysis 2, but it seems like Crytek only listened to their words, rather than the sentiment. People immediately railed against the visuals. Crytek answered by saying it was PC first. People complained about the multiplayer. Crytek attempts to make that more compelling. What people didn't articulate well is that a tacked on single player game was unacceptable. We expect Crytek to know that, but rarely articulate the sentiment to them.

Is it unreasonable to ask that Crytek have the same vision that created Crysis, but put more polish into it (ala Crysis 2)? I think it's reasonable. Crysis, with more polish, better design, and some streamlining is what people want. If Crytek could deliver that then people might be satisfied. As it stands, it seems like Crysis 3 is more appropriately 2.5. It continues an unfulfilling story, that might be passable if it were taped to the end of 2. That kind of disappointment is what people want to avoid.

Click to expand...

I guess I saw Crysis differently than you... I saw it basically as Far Cry running next-gen graphics except this time there's aliens instead of trigens. It was a good game but I don't see how it did anything new other than in the realm of graphics.

Is anyone having issues with the Catalyst 13.2 beta 5 or 6 when running Crysis? I made it through the first level with no issues, but I've gotten four driver crashes and one DirectX-related BSOD running the 5 and 6 betas on my Crossfire 7970 in the second level.

I guess I saw Crysis differently than you... I saw it basically as Far Cry running next-gen graphics except this time there's aliens instead of trigens. It was a good game but I don't see how it did anything new other than in the realm of graphics.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm looking back through rose colored glasses.

I remember it as better than just a graphical overhaul, but there's room for debate. At least we can agree that the last two have been little more than eye candy generic shooters.

I loved the MP Beta, but I'm not entirely sure I'm going to fork over the 60-70 dollars for a slightly improved game than the Beta.

Should I...?

Click to expand...

That's up to you. I'm sure if you just wait a couple months you'll be able to find a deal for it somehow for $30 or so.

I thought it was worth the $60 for the best graphics to date attached to an enjoyable single player, with a competent multiplayer. But I'm a bit of a graphics whore - I enjoyed this game 100x more than I would have if it had minecraft graphics.

That's up to you. I'm sure if you just wait a couple months you'll be able to find a deal for it somehow for $30 or so.

I thought it was worth the $60 for the best graphics to date attached to an enjoyable single player, with a competent multiplayer. But I'm a bit of a graphics whore - I enjoyed this game 100x more than I would have if it had minecraft graphics.

Just watched/read some reviews on this game, and I'm not liking what they say. It appears the main focus of this title was the mp, while seriously skimping on the campaign. Word is it's only 5 hrs long and the AI are even dumber than those in Crysis 2. About all it looks to be sp wise is candy graphics.

While some of you might say "It's the mp that sells a game", this is a trilogy, as in the story and campaign are supposed to be a focal point, not a cheap side show. I guess it's not surprising after seeing how much worse Crysis 2 was vs the original, but when you see average ratings of only 7.8/10 on the PC version, it's clear it didn't go out on a strong note. http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/667503-crysis-3/index.html

So while CryTek are quickly becoming a rather large studio, buying up the IP of studios in financial trouble on the cheap, I can't help but think they're going to become like Epic Games, whom make far worse use of their engine than some other teams do, and in this case it's clearly more the game content and AI than graphics.

Just watched/read some reviews on this game, and I'm not liking what they say. It appears the main focus of this title was the mp, while seriously skimping on the campaign. Word is it's only 5 hrs long and the AI are even dumber than those in Crysis 2. About all it looks to be sp wise is candy graphics.

Click to expand...

I've read the reviews as well, and I don't understand these complaints. Campaign is about 5-7 hours long, but it's basically the same length of a Halo campaign and yet you don't typically find people whining about those games' campaign lengths.

It's also better in every respect - graphics, AI, level design, replayability, characters, story, etc - than Crysis 2 was. I've just about finished it and I already want to replay it. When I finished Crysis 2, I never wanted to touch it again because I thought it was so generic and blah.

The AI sometimes is too easy to fool with your invisibility, but that's really the only issue with the AI I've seen - and that's been true of every Crysis game.

I can see why some people may not like the game, but I don't understand the Crysis 3 reviews relative to Crysis 2's.

While I'm not quite sure yet how it will play yet, it can't be denied a mere 6 or so hr campaign is not a great way to cap off the trilogy of a big series like this. That's merely the typical made from movies type game length. I've also read that AI, both CELL and Ceph, can be easily taken out one after the other, because like clockwork they all investigate their fallen the same, making them easy prey.

I can see maybe one, or even two coming to take a look, but after a pile of corpses start building up, it's time to make the AI a bit less gullible. Too many games that have a stealth gameplay mechanic make this mistake. Look at Far Cry 3 for instance. You can use stealth, but you have to really earn it. When AI see a corpse their first reaction is to warn others, take cover, and investigate. If a lot have been killed they're more likely to take cover until they know where the threat is coming from, which makes sense.